All Comments (85)

In my personal opinion religion has lost its meaning. In these times religion is used to sway the masses toward a certain person, or even a groups beliefs. These days people use religion to reinforce certain arguments, but at the same time violate the teachings of the religion they use as a reinforcement. For example: a christian may say homosexual marrage is wrong because it goes against the teachings of the bible, but isn't it wrong for one man to judge anotherman in such a way? Does Jesus not say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (in other words Jesus is saying if you are with sin then do not cast judgement)?!

I believe that a politician should have the skills needed to improve his nations military, economy, national defence, and society e.t.c.! Allowing others to know your religion is fine, but isn't something that is mandatory! Religion tends to disrupt politics. So many use religion to twist truths, and most of the people to use religion to reinfoce an argument don't know enough about the religion they use to preach it! The key reason I am posting this messege is to point out how religion is used only as a tool by most leaders. Religion is a great tool to sway ignorant masses into thinking a certain persons agenda is just. Religion is not what it was ment to be. I believe religion is something that exists to help people improve, and become able to live life with the inner strenght needed to carry on. Now it is more like something we market on T.V., or something ignorantly used to make others follow a certain person, or group.

Posted on January 25, 2007 17:54

BRAMBLETON:

My whole statement has been based on the fact that we live in the United States, which is by far the majority Christian in faith. It's not an attack against that faith in particular, contrary to what you believe. When you say there are no facts to support what I've said, read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_historical_predictions_by_Christians#Twenty-first_century

When you have a faith based on and including the second coming of Jesus, the war of Armageddon, the arrival on earth of the Antichrist, the Tribulation, the Rapture, you are have a belief system geared towards doom and punishment. Here's a fact, horrible things happen: war, poverty, global warming, natural disasters, hunger, disease, etc. Those have nothing to do with God, but human nature and human actions, not to mention just natural occurances. Who is so quick to peg an natural event as an act of God? Religious minded people. When you have books written like "Left Behind", do you not think that people like minded are going to wonder if events happening aren't leading up to something like what they are reading? Of course they would/do.

http://www.familychristiancenter.org/sp7prophecies0601.htm

Oh wait, is that another link to 1 of around 30,000 pages under a search of "Christian end of the world September 11th"? Yes, it is. Almost twice as many results as you get if you substitute "Christian" with Muslim (about 17,500 results). Looks like Christians are more inclined to think that way afterall.

actually- the interpertation of 'separation of church and state'was put forth by james madison- it is not actually in the constitution but was a proposed as constitutional theory-

JORY- if you dont vote you let others decide for you and that just doesnt seem smart to me-

the panelist never discussed talking about relgion- only revealing relgious affiliations-

how anyone could claim to be intelligent and then say they deliberately only want limited information to work with is a paradox indeed-

if youre a politican- you are aiming to become a servant to the PUBLIC-

why would anyone advocate a lack of public disclosure of such an integral part of a candidates make-up?

how is sticking your head in the sand making your decisions any more informed?

Up here in northern New England, it's considered bad form, inappropriate, and reprehensible for a political candidate to talk about his religious affiliation and religious beliefs. Any candidate who does talk about them is almost certain to lose more votes than he gains.

There are good reasons for this Yankee disparagement of religion-talk by politicians.

First, political campaigns are supposed to be about public political issues, not theology.

Second, whatever a candidate's religious beliefs or affiliation, knowing them will tell the voter nothing about how the candidate will deal with particular issues, and so that knowledge is irrelevant to an evaluation of his candidacy.

Third, a candidate's mentioning his religious beliefs or affiliation turns the discussion away from public issues and to a debate on the merits of various religions. The candidate is basically saying. "Vote for me, I'm a (for example) Catholic, not one of those (for example) Blue-nosed Protestants."

Instead of debating the best way to fix potholes, the debate becomes "Which ethnic or social group do you identify and feel more comfortable with?" This is not good for politics, as centuries of religious warfare have shown. Not to mention that fixing potholes never gets discussed.

Fourth, just as patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, religiosity is the last refuge of scoundrel politicians.

I'll never vote for any politician who voluntarily starts talking about his religion. Fortunately most of the people in northern New England feel the same way.

Let the clap-trap of political religion-talk stay in the Bible-belt.

Dear DW,

I am not going to be pulled into your rabid debate about the existence of god. This is not the forum for that nor do I feeled compelled do so. My point is that athiests do exist and they have every right to do so by our constitution. I am sorry that athiests offend or threaten you so much. I can appreciate that you believe in and love your god. That's great for you. But it doesn't work for me. I wish you no ill will. The question at stake on this forum is should politicians be required to disclose their religion? Melm's post sums up my feelings rather well. So DW, do you think that politicians should be required to disclose their religion? Why or why not?

Please don't take my unwillingness to answer your questions as some kind one-upsmanship. I choose to take the warning about trolls to heart.

Kelly,

"Just because the "fables" in the bible are old doesn't make them anything more than just a big book of stories created by ordinary human beings."

Big book of stories....this is very interesting. So, if I understand correctly, even the story of Pontius Pilate and Jesus is a fable, and the historian Josephus wrote fables about Jesus' life, among others in the first century, etc (logical, educated individuals will know that the list can go on more than the bytes allowed here). One has to wonder why none of the brothers Grimm characters never made it to the fable status comparable to what Jesus Christ and God the Father made it to. Wonder why that is? I guess it is sad, for some, to see that the Church of Rapunzel didnt quite make a following of any mention. Personally, I feel the 'fable' of Rev. 12:9 has gripped the world as a whole.

btw, you did not fully comment on my question. Id really like to know, in your view, where the fable began (i.e. the concept of God). Or, if you cannont be conclusive on that, perhaps you could comment on something like where Charles Darwin left off, near the end of his years, on the subject of the human eye, stating basically that it is impossible to equate the complexity of its structure to chance. I've always wondered what atheists feel about Darwins latter commentary, along with others like Louis Pasteur, etc who did not dismiss an intelligent creator when all was said and done. It am eager and would be truly grateful to hear your commentary on this.

Dear DW,

Fables are stories, created by men. Grimm's fairy tales and Aesops fables have good stories too. Just because the "fables" in the bible are old doesn't make them anything more than just a big book of stories created by ordinary human beings.

DW, although it seems incredulous that people feel this way, it's true. In a secular society we all need accept and appreciate that people do not share the same beliefs. This is a good thing. It keeps the dialog open and allows us not to follow blindly and without question. Americans have the freedom to choose what they believe. I certainly hope it stays that way.

As I read through comments in these forums, I notice that we have a lot of internet un-savvy people engaging in discusssions with some obvious internet Trolls. For those of you not familiar with large forums such as those commonly assocaited with RPGs like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, here is the definition of a Troll (from Wikipedia):

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Unfortunately, it does not stop there. Trolls commonly post inflammatory comments in order to direct you to a web site. These web sites sometimes contain keyloggers. Keyloggers exploit security vunerabilities to record keystrokes, which in turn allows them to steal credit card numbers and other personal information. Sometimes the site merely relies on "hits" for revenue.

So, a word of caution, please be careful when directed to other websites. Most forums are moderated and warnings of this kind are given, but this one has an anonymous option where you don't get the warning. I hope no one is forced to learn about Trolls the hard way. Many are from other countries (North Korea is a good example) and are untouchable.

I'll post this in a couple of the other threads as my good deed for the day.

Of course we should know.

We should know if someone is a KKK member, a Nazi, a rabid Catholic, a barmy Baptist or a irrational Islamist.

As their religion (especially in the case of Muslims...as traitorous suicide bombing acts in London showed, as did the murder of American soldiers in their tent in Iraq by a Muslim, so called comrade in arms a few years back) will often come first and they will be shockingly biased for and against certain people, which would not be allowed without this phony shield of religion to hide their prejudices behind.

The voters need to know all to fully decide.

Kelly,

So, in your estimation, where did the fable begin?

Dear DW

"One would perceive that the atheist thought is that the family of man has been playing a 'God fable' all these thousands of years. History from all corners of the earth undeniably shows that God has been a part of our existence on this earth for these same thousands of years. Could they (atheists) possibly tell us where this fable began? Do they think that multiple billions of people through the ages have just merely been duped into beleiving that there is a God?"

Yes, DW. Hope that helps you out. But that really isn't the question here is it?

Melm, well said.

I'll add, where would Germany have been without Hitler Youth Camp? Is a camp that indoctrinates just another indoctrinating camp? Is Jesus Boot Camp all that different? Learning lies while too young to analysize and see the lie is negative education. Children leaving Jesus Boot Camp are more ignorant than before they went. It's child abuse.

Here is how I look at it. If a canidate plays the faith card he/she better walk the walk. I am more interested in someone's stand on the issue than what faith they profess. If an agnostic or atheist ran for office I would take that faith or lack thereof into consideration, but I would look at the complete canidate. It's only fair after all.

I agree, but I also think that a candidate should not suffer sanction for preferring to keep his or her beliefs private. Suppose a Jewish candidate would stand to gain a great amount of support by disclosing that he or she is Jewish, and chooses not to do so? Simply dismissing them because they refuse to answer the treaspass into their private beliefs risks losing one of the most pure adherents to the Jewish Faith...in this example. That non-starter combined with religious ignorance would be a tragic loss of value in our potential pool of representatives. Now if questioned about a specific policy decision, if the candidate falls back to "faith" then I think it is fair and reasonable to delve deeper into the candidate's rationale.

God Bless you and yours and Keep you Always in the Light, Love, Peace and Understanding of God. amen.

--"I have faith that helping to alleviate suffering is a moral obligation."--

This is a belief.

Often people use the word faith to be synonymous with belief, as in the statment above. It is equivalent to: "I believe alleviating suffering is a moral obligation."

A belief is typically a proposition that has (or to which, one may assign) a truth value.

Such constructs are distinct from, say, "I have faith in the New Orleans Saints." In this context, the statement tells an observer more about me (the subject) than the Saints (the object). It indicates that I have a positive attitude towards the Saints.

I encounter many people who conflate the belief and attitude usage of the word faith (typically people with a conservative religious bent).

Insofar as faith indicates an attitude of positive openness, it tends to be beneficial.

On the other hand, it is when people use faith as a synonym to belief, and when such people practice reckless obedience to some doctrine or ideology... we end up with people flying planes into buildings or waging unneccessary wars.

Sorry, folks, but I just can't resist:

"Standards of marriage"?

Hmmm, where would you like the rest of us to stand on such things as marriage between the various races, marriage between members of different faiths and practices, or even marriages between couples with differing political beliefs?

In this country and others, at this time and previously, all of those joinings were/are still considered to fall beneath someone's ideas of "standards of marriage".

Oh, and by the way: who are you to tell me what and how to believe; what's right or wrong; what's good or evil? I already have a perfectly capable God to provide me with all the answers I want, so we don't need you to butt in with your two cents.

Atheism: The great threat to mankinds existence.

One would perceive that the atheist thought is that the family of man has been playing a 'God fable' all these thousands of years. History from all corners of the earth undeniably shows that God has been a part of our existence on this earth for these same thousands of years. Could they (atheists) possibly tell us where this fable began? Do they think that multiple billions of people through the ages have just merely been duped into beleiving that there is a God? If so, one would perceive, then, that the atheist must think those before us who have voiced their faith in a Creator God are just plain dumb. If that is the case, then an atheist is much more a harsh judge than the God they deny.

This post is not only wrong, it is anti-Constitutional and anti-American.

Our Constituion says that there shall be no test of religion. What you propose is a blatant test of religion, sir. Your comparing it to wanting to know about "boxers or briefs" is immaterial and ignorant. There is no special provision carved out in the Constitution for boxers or briefs, while there is an explicit provision provided for religious beliefs.

In jolly old England, one had to profess belief in the church of the State or face the consequences. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough - and, more importantly, BRAVE enough - to provide for freedom of religion on every level.

As the many, many posts above show, much of the country is also ignorant of the rights and protections enscribed in The Constitution. It is even more chilling to read bloggers who want know a candidate's religious beliefs so that they may better consider their "qualifications" for office, when The Constitution uses the very words "no religious test as a qualification" in its prohibition of a religious test for office.

What you think is immaterial. What your religion and holy books say is immaterial. Your beliefs and your holy books are not the law of the land, The Constituion is, sir.

Shame on you for not knowing this basic point.

Article 6:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

What has happened is that the political parties have discovered that this is a very religious country and religion is important to many voters.

This discussion about religion is occuring because the politicians are attempting to find a way to communicate with that religious part of the culture. The religious voters were ignored for years and the Republicans tapped into that vein in 2000 and 2004. The Democrats in 2006.

S: - You are so right. There is a God.

Is the Bible God's word? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul proves the Bible is Devil's word and not God's word at all. We must seek God and avoid Devil as best we can. Good luck when you see God explaining how you crucified His only begotten son. You lucky rascal that story is a hoax.

Melm,

Ditto. Well said.

JORY:

"Is my opinion any more baseless or without merit as your own? No. They are just opinions and neither can be proven or disproven unless it (and hopefully it never does) happen."

--- C'mon man, THINK. You're right in that your opinion is just that - opinion. However, mine is based on historical evidence. Whether it be Pearl Harbor, the Oklahoma Federal building, or the Twin Towers, there is absolutely, unequivocally, no evidence WHATSOEVER that for some INSANE reason, Christians will act any different from secular society in the situation you describe. Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute.

My post was directed at the absurd comments attributed to Mr. Harris. To believe Christians will behave in an irrational manner any different from non-Christians is idiosy. For whatever reasons.

I want to know about a candidate's philosophy--religious or not--as it pertains to making decisions.

If a person is going to go along with "Just War Theory", I want to know about it. If someone believes in "rapture", I want to know about it. If someone wants to take over the country and turn it into a theocracy--seeking "godly dominion", I want to know about it. If a candidate has "Christian Reconstructionist" views, I want to know about it. If someone wants to wreak natural science, starting with evolution, I want to know about it. If someone wants to wreak the economy with social schemes or socialism, I want to know about it. Tyranny is tyranny; it's all rotten.

Under no circumstances should a candidate hide some agenda--religious or not--from the voters. And, a taboo against any kind of rhetoric is just going to keep voters from getting a good look at the candidate.

As to "faith", it's a vice. One has a choice between "reality, reason, knowledge" or "holy book, faith, dogma." With hundreds of religions, sects, and cults in the world, there's obviously nothing in the methodology of faith that will converge to truth. What dogma one gets out of the procedure of faith is highly personal and usually what one was indoctrinated with as a child. Therefore, one's religious views are--in principle--subjective and "relative": hardly qualifying as "absolutes" I would say. Only facts are absolutes and they can't be found or known by faith--only facts can be universal to all people. The idea that ethics requires religion is rediculous. As a start, ask yourself what values and virtues would be required to live on a deserted island (like Tom Hanks' character in the movie) and then return to civilization. Hint: reason will become a critical virture.

There is no way one can rely on faith and escape the fact that one is (fundamentally) alone to face reality with one's own mind. Reason is a virtue, faith is a vice! You can evade this but you can't escape the consequences.

To those who are not aware that a religious cult is trying to take control of this country, you'd better start doing some research. If you need some motivation, watch the movie trailer of the "Jesus Camp" documentary that just received a nomination for an Academy Award then go watch the UK Channel 4 doc about Patrick Henry College (search Google video using "Patrick Henry College"). Frankly, questions about religious "rhetoric" are incredibly superficial when we're facing a serious menace from inside this country as well as from religion elsewhere.

to david:

there is a GOD! deal with it. GOD bless your heart.

I agree, keep it off the table, because they will lie, like they do about everything else. We need to fire the politicians who take millions from lobbyists to lie to us. If you've never heard of a candidate, that's the best one!

I don't want to know the religion of the candidate; just as I don't want to know what they do in their beds. I am experiecing overwhelming religion fatigue. I just want to know that they can make the best decisions facing the problems of our country today. I do not believe religious people have moral superiorty over non-religious people. Given the state of the world and all the religious extremists, including our current administation,I have no faith in politicians of "faith". Keep it off the table. Don't make it a campaign strategy. It just makes us look as desperate as the "faithful" people we call our enemy.

Wiccan Ted Haggert should run and Mr Hawking hasn't done anything I've heard of to run from. Like Mr President said, they can run but they can't hide. Except for bin Laden. You don't suppose he's hiding out with Ted Haggert?

Paulette is praying for all of them, in public. Mr Hawking might have something to run from after all. Allways face Mecca when praying for bin Laden I alsays say.

Pat:

I am appalled by your comment “embarrassing” because we pray for others well being!! That is disgusting… You know what is embarrassing children without parents, children’s being abused, children smoking pot, children killing children, children killing themselves!! We are embarrassing because we might be praying for children’s safety, or for the benefit of the parents or even praying for situations that a person can not help themselves and not only praying but helping. You know what I think its embarrassing when you can talk all you want and put down... yet you don’t do anything about it. SAD SO SAD!

John McDermott:
"Do you realize that several state constitutions explicitly prohibit atheists from running for public office? So, a Christian like Ted Haggert could run, but an atheist like Stephen Hawking couldn't. Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?"

Let's put this fallacy to rest. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Any federal law trumps any conflicting state law. The state religious test laws cannot be enforced.

BTW- I'd much rather have Stephen Hawking than Ted Haggert, but that's just me.

Robert - just a thought. Could it be that Israelites are actually Egyptians and not Jews?

Check this out:
Ezekiel 29:12, 29:13, 30:23, 30:26

The jist of them can be seen as the Egyptians being scattered to all lands and then coming home can it not? Where are the Egyptians right now?

Then there could be the case of someone not properly editing the sacred scriptures and carelessly overlooking Egyptians in this one place?

Try substituting Egyptian for both Hebrew and Israelite and read it again. It'll make a lot more sense of course if you know a little ancient Egyptian history, say around the time of Moses.

What words actually mean makes a world of differenct.
Israelite - builder/carpenter. St Joseph was a _________.
Hebrew - a special woman. Queens are ___________.

I know finding you've been hoaxed is a tough one. Time will heal the wound.

Robert - just a thought. Could it be that Israelites are actually Egyptians and not Jews?

Check this out:
Ezekiel 29:12, 29:13, 30:23, 30:26

The jist of them can be seen as the Egyptians being scattered to all lands and then coming home can it not? Where are the Egyptians right now?

Then there could be the case of someone not properly editing the sacred scriptures and carelessly overlooking Egyptians in this one place?

Try substituting Egyptian for both Hebrew and Israelite and read it again. It'll make a lot more sense of course if you know a little ancient Egyptian history, say around the time of Moses.

What words actually mean makes a world of differenct.
Israelite - builder/carpenter. St Joseph was a _________.
Hebrew - a special woman. Queens are ___________.

I know finding you've been hoaxed is a tough one. Time will heal the wound.

Robert:

Please do not ASSUME!

The issue is not about Biblical truth...it is about our philosophy of life. Our philosophy of life in America gives support for all kinds of understanding of creation. Every religion and non-religion must some how explain creation. Evolutionism gives an explaination of creation! The fact is history exists -- How do you explain it?

Our American truth is that we allow all people to have an explanation of creation. The challenge as a people group is giving everyone the FREEDOM to explore their understanding. What we as a nation must always remember is the fact that all men and women are created equal.

To force one understanding of creation on another group does not up hold our American Philosophy of life. This goes both ways! Evolutionist are just as forceful in evangelizing their explanation of creation on people. Science is just another group seeking truth! Evolutionism is a scientific theory of creation.

The truth will set us Free!

We are a people of philosophy. We love to seek wisdom! And, we give everyone the right to be their own individual philosophers! Thus our...individuality! But, in our individuality we must still hold these truths to be self-evident!

I want to know my presidents philosophy in up holding this truth! He must be self-evident!

Faith is private.

People should keep their faith as such, private and to themselves Pray at home or in church, but not in the public or with the public. Public praying looks bad to the rest of us,as well as embarassing for non-christians. believe it or not there are many non-christians in America, beside just Muslims or Hindus.

Profess your faith elsewhere not in the voter box or in the public office, at church and at home would be better suited for private citezens and public officials.

That is your opinion on how you believe the population of the U.S. would react to an attack of that proportion. My opinion is different. Is my opinion any more baseless or without merit as your own? No. They are just opinions and neither can be proven or disproven unless it (and hopefully it never does) happen.

As for the attack on Japan, again it's a matter of opinion. I'm sure most people here in the U.S. were scared about that event..but just like a sad story on the news nowadays, you say "oh, that's so sad" and you change the channel and continue eating your supper like nothing happened. It would be different if it happens to us. We would be the sad story on the news living it and going thru it. People have the natural ability to have a sense of separation from events until it happens to them. Out of sight, out of mind. I PERSONALLY believe that had it happened to the U.S. that most people would have believed the end to be near (whether rapture or just nuclear annihilation). Again, a difference of opinions.

"I never stated personally that the Bible says anything about any event occuring in the United States."

--- The quote used from Mr. Harris expressly states that a "significant" portion of the Christian population in America would interpret a nuclear attack in NYC as a prelude to the Rapture. That statement is completely baseless and without merit.

"The facts about Japan are that most of it's population isn't Christian. Yes, there WERE Christians during WWII. Were Christians targeted in these two attacks? No. So your point is what?"

--- The Bible does not say, AT ALL, that the second coming of Jesus will occur when CHRISTIANS are attacked. There is just as much justification for the Rapture if a bomb goes off in NYC as there was when two were detonated in Japan. And the POINT is that Christians will not act any differently from an attack on NYC as any other citizen.

If you're going to attack and demonize a religion, maybe it would be wise to learn about it first. Not a sermon, just a thought.

I know this is going to sound silly to most people but I believe in creation because the bible says so. The bible was written by 66 authors over 1500 years between all of the books all echoing the same thing There is only one God. Prophecy has been instilled in the Word of God to prove beyond a doubt this is the true Word of God. If you were to gather 66 different authors today and have them write a book on the birth of politics and government, you would probably have 66 different opinions. The Word of God is and has stayed the same for thousands of years. Check out the book of Ezekiel chapter 36. It describes Isreals independence in 1948 to a "T". Only the true living God can know these things.

Personally, I want to know our candidates faith. At the same time words are just words I want to see their faith through action. If a candidate is going to proclaim his or hers faith as a selling point I want to know how their actions have followed their self proclaimed faith.

DJ

Miss Mary:

Sorry I missed your post to me. I usually read all post but was distracted. Now what was that about Jews enereing the land God promisted them? Which God was that anyhow?

They were not Jews to bebin with but rather Israelites. That's beside the point. Hoaxes do exactly what the Bible has done to you. It's given you a hoaxified account of a real event.

Amenophis IV, the figure on whom Moses is based led 12 tribes of foreigners, israelites meaning builders or carpenters, from Egypt to a place today knowns as El Amarna. There they built, "The Tower of Bable" as well as a "Tabernacle" where they did exactly what the Bible says they did, worshipped, honored, adored, glorified and made sacrifices to the God of the father of Moses, Abraham, Jacob et al, the sun. That God is the father of Jesus. The virgin Mary, for whom you were probably named became pregnant by the sun.

Hoaxes aren't pure fiction. There are lots of facts about ancient Egyptian history in the Bible. The Jews are victims of the hoax too. That God, the sun has served them well don't you think?

It's not my web site but thanks for the complement. There's lots of learned men and women that wish it was theirs. The more ignorant ones don't get it.

Did you take it from the top, http://www.hoax-buster.org

Religion: The great threat to freedom in the US and the world.

ROBERT:
How can you prove you were created in any other sense of the word other than biologically, just like any other living creature? How can you prove that the Bible is the true word of God and not the Quran or any other literature proclaiming a specific faith to be the word of God? Personally, I see the Bible as a sort of guide to morality (not all of it is great to follow though)but I don't take anything it says seriously other than that.

Were you created? Of course you were. Than there must also be a creator. Wouldn't you serve and obey you creator? The Bible is exactly that the WORD OF GOD. The Bible has been proven to be archiological history. For thousands of year Kings, Queens, and dictators have tried to have this book wiped off the face of the earth with no success. Because it is the word of the True living God. Scientists have never been able to disprove a word of the Bible. Make no mistake Satan is real he is the 2nd most powerful force on earth. Be sure that everyday of your life you are serving something God or Satan, there is no other option. I want a President who is serving the Lord. I pray for all of you fellow Americans. Only the Lord can soften peoples hearts for he is the only way to salvation.

BRAMBLETON:
I'm the one who cannot think for himself? That's amusing. Perhaps you do not remember the events on September 11th. Many, MANY people were stocking up on non-perishable goods, duct-tape and plastic sheeting, believing that more attacks were on the way. This was a tiny portion of the fear that I believe people would feel if an atomic bomb went off in NYC. Are you gullible enough to believe that people in or surrounding NYC aren't going to believe that something worse was coming? This is the same thing people felt from September 11th. I never stated personally that the Bible says anything about any event occuring in the United States. The facts are that the United States fosters a lot of doomsayers. Over the last 100 years many of these kinds of people (mostly Christian) predicted the end of the world and the next coming of Christ. You refer to the blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII and are correct in stating that Mr. Harris didn't include those horrible events. The facts about Japan are that most of it's population isn't Christian. Yes, there WERE Christians during WWII. Were Christians targeted in these two attacks? No. So your point is what?

The challenge with always quoting Constitutional law is that we often forget the philosophy that the law is intended to support. The philosophy of the US is

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...

The constitution was designed to support this statement.

I would hope we understand a president's understanding and practice of this statement. It is part of the truth of our philosophy of life. No matter what religion he or she is, they must hold these truths to be self-evident.

What would his nation be if Lincoln did not believe in this self-evident truth? Or MLK

However a person wants to read the Constitution, they must always support the truth of our philosophy of life grounded in this one simple but very complex statement.

It is not a religious statement, but a philosophy of life! It is our national truth! And the truth will set us -- Free!

Dre:

Why are you so mad? Because i don't agree with your belief? I think that's a bit Childish! I have not offended you in anyway... I believe in what i have seen and yes i do believe in up holding the marriages and if you don't like tough... But what you did not mention are the children so i guess you agree that people have the right to kill children. Its very Convenient to defend the things the hit close to home. But why not insult me about caring for children? And i gues believing in doing good, helping others, changing people's live for ther better would lead to your death GIVE ME A BREAK!

Paulette:
Personally, I DO agree with you on those qualities regarding a President. For the most part, you never get all of those qualities in one package unfortunately.

JORY:

Thank you for quoting Sam Harris, as it is apparent that you lack the qualities to think for yourself.

Mr. Harris' statement is completely absurd and FACTUALLY inaccurate. COULD a single atomic detonation in NYC be a precursor for the Rapture? Sure, anything is possible, although MOST Christians would probably not jump to that conclusion. But nowhere in the Bible does it state that the event needs to take place in the United States for that to occur. Secondly, the nuclear blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII have escaped Mr. Harris' rhetoric. I don't remember any sort of "the world is over" fanatacism after these two events. Were there no Christians alive during WWII?

paulette:

"uphold the standards of marriage"! Wow, that really is a top priority. I mean, aside from the fact that based on your religious beliefs you choose to deny some people the same liberties as others, is that really something our government should be concerned with? Really?

You will likely never understand this but your beliefs will be the death of us all. I guess that you probably just think that will fulfill some ridiculous prophecy, though. Oh well. Perhaps the universe will be better of without us considering most of our species are deluded to the point of homicidal and genocidal actions.

Why doesn't the media ever report on issues like this about our constitution when the discussion of separation of church and state arise? Is it because:
a)most people don't know?
b)most people already know?
c)somebody doesn't want you to know?
d)nobody cares?

Jory:

If You felt by what I wrote as being judgmental then I am sorry. Clearly you missed my point.

My Point is simple:

I want a President who believes in saving lives and not taking. I want a President who will uphold the standards of marriages. I want a President who not only do the talking but walking.
Regardless if he's Christian or not. But 90% of the time those who stand for these issues happen to be Christian.

Anyhow Jory you don't have to agree with me.. And i am not asking you either.

I believe in God because of what he has done for me and how he is changed my life.

Do you realize that several state constitutions explicitly prohibit atheists from running for public office? So, a Christian like Ted Haggert could run, but an atheist like Stephen Hawking couldn't. Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states: “…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Those who tell us that we shouldn’t vote for someone who expresses religious faith are not advocating a position that is constitutional.

paulette:

What an excellent display of ignorance--worthy of a true believer. "In God We Trust" was actually added in the 1950's. More importantly, you need to read The Constitution again. There is an obvious absence to any reference to god anywhere in the whole document! This absence was deliberate on the part of our country's founders--many of the most influential of whom actually disdained religion (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams for starters). Yes, there is freedom of religion but that is more consistent with their philosphy of freedom than their promotion of religion. Big difference. Far from being "founded on religion", our nation was founded on freedom, which includes the tolerance of people's beliefs--no matter how silly they are.

There is no god. Deal with it!

Since religious faith is based on no evidence whatsoever, I truly wish that it were not a basis for public policy. Faith is belief without evidence. To set government policy based on texts that are thousands of years old and have no basis in reality and require you to believe in essentially what is an imaginary friend is folly.

Bobby:

You said "I have faith that helping to alleviate suffering is a moral obligation."

That's more of a belif than faith, but okay. Forget the semantics. Whether it's faith or belief, it is independent of religion. There's nothing in the ten commandments about alleviating the suffering of others. Your god, be it Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah, is more concerned with his ego than the suffering of others. I've read all the books. Frankly, all of these characters leave much to be desired (though I'll admit that Jesus is the most humane, though he still thought slavery was a good idea).

Concern for others is actually an evolutionary development--and one that still, thankfully, exists IN SPITE OF RELIGION.

As for me, I think the irrational belief in some sky god who is watching everything you do--though he is more concerned with your sex life than anything else (quite the perv, this god character)--should necessarily disqualify a candidate for office. So, it looks like I'll have no one to vote for.

Paulette:
So by me not being a Christian, I wouldn't share ANY of the moral beliefs you have? For any issues outside of religion, I can't share any common ground with you and what you feel is right and wrong? Why the moral judgement for those unlike your